Van Orden v. Perry

Media Items
Oral Argument
Get Adobe Flash Player
Opinion Announcement
Get Adobe Flash Player
Advocates
Erwin Chemerinsky (argued the cause for Petitioner)
Paul D. Clement (argued the cause for Respondents, on behalf of the United States, as amicus curiae, supporting respondents)
Greg Abbott (argued the cause for Respondents)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 
03-1500
Petitioner: 
Thomas Van Orden
Respondent: 
Rick Perry, in his Official Capacity as Governor of Texas and Chairman, State Preservation Board, et al.
Opinion: 
545 U.S. ___ (2005)
Categories: 
establishment of religion

Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Van Orden v. Perry , 545 U.S. ___ (2005)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_03_1500)
Facts of the Case: 

Thomas Van Orden sued Texas in federal district court, arguing a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the state capitol building building represented an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Orden argued this violated the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from passing laws "respecting an establishment of religion." The district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Orden and said the monument served a valid secular purpose and would not appear to a reasonable observer to represent a government endorsement of religion.

Question: 

Does a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of a state capitol building violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, which barred the government from passing laws "respecting an establishment of religion?"

Conclusion: 

No. In 5-4 decision, and in a four-justice opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the establishment clause did not bar the monument on the grounds of Texas' state capitol building. The plurality deemed the Texas monument part of the nation's tradition of recognizing the Ten Commandments' historical meaning. Though the Commandments are religious, the plurality argued, "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Perry, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion

Sort by Ideology

Wrote the judgment of the Court
Rehnquist
Wrote a dissent, joined Souter's dissent
Stevens
Wrote a dissent
O'Connor
Wrote a regular concurrence
Scalia
Voted with the majority
Kennedy
Wrote a dissent
Souter
Wrote a regular concurrence
Thomas
Voted with the minority, joined Stevens' dissent, joined Souter's dissent
Ginsburg
Wrote a special concurrence
Breyer

Judgment of the Court by Justice William H. Rehnquist